Sorry, what I mean is that if those in authority are loyal, educated and trustworthy, then it would be ideal for them to possess weapons. Along with this, if they establish a legislation on the abolition of weapons and arms, then this would also be effective and thoughtful. Laws and legislation are like bricks. In order to build a suitable and stable place you must get the right bricks which are all the right size but not only this, you need some mortar in order to help you build a perfect and firm place. The mortar in this case, would be the people trying their best in promoting a safe and peaceful haven full of love and justice in which ever way they can so long as it doesn't have side effects.
Just so long as there's a long enough response time that I can complete impregnating a room full of girls, forcefully and against their will, before someone with a firearm shows up for me to steal it from and kill them.
You forget that humans, like all predators, are born with several very important weapons. The most important combination being our exceptionally acute binocular vision and our large brains.
You cannot disarm someone with the will to be armed. I can come up with thousands of different ways to use what is in someone's home to create advantages for myself against any foe. I was raised under martial arts programs, and the core concepts have become -first- nature to me. I do not know how to "react like a normal person." Which is why a number of basic self-defense techniques have little effect on me (spare for the ones that inflict pain - and that is hardly as shocking of an experience as it needs to be to create an advantage).
So, the whole notion that you're somehow going to make the world safer by removing weapons is just silly. I can pick up a broom and take on a room full of people. Give me a kitchen knife and I can make several families disappear overnight. Law enforcement is the -response- to my behavior, not its prevention.
Thanks for sharing the video. It was quite shocking and has made me realize that the case of corrupt people in authority is among the most bothersome and problematic things to ever exist. It's because of this, that the World is getting ****ed up. U_U
It's really just because people are stupid. All people are corrupt and use their position as a means to leverage an advantage. People on welfare programs will intentionally get fired from jobs or disqualify themselves from the hiring process so that they can still qualify for their benefits. Why work for money when you can qualify for benefits and have plenty of time to sit around and play games or do whatever whims come to you?
Common 'wisdom' holds that it's the rich who are corrupt... but the 'poor' can be just as corrupt. Everyone leverages their position to gain an advantage. It is our collective ignorance of this fact that creates the most problems. People don't realize when they are being 'taken from behind' because they have allowed themselves to be deluded into thinking 'power' only includes political offices and money.
Your right, humans natural believe that bringing conflict will bring peace. Well, actually it's not entirely their fault since they all want peace but in their own ways, while the response of those who oppose their methods causes wars to occur. Then I say, that's when the decision of which of the two or more sides is the most rational and just. The people who are civilized and count of bringing peace through love and fairness are the heroes in my eyes and should be in anybody's eyes. People power; that's what democracy is and is about people working together to change the world for the better.
Democracy isn't about people working together. Democracy is a system of making decisions amongst a group of people with differing ideas.
The problem is that you do not 'bring' peace. To bring 'peace' and cooperation with each other means to bring about change for some other group of people. While there are means of doing and promoting this, they do not necessarily prompt -individual- cooperation. Economics can change entire cultures with breathtaking pace... but it doesn't necessarily cause people to change their individual habits and outlooks.
This is why nations like Egypt are having so much trouble. The culture is changing to keep pace with the rest of the world, and individuals are resisting that change. Violently as they so choose.
In that sense - you can't "bring" peace. You can only bring change. Which is, by its very nature, going to create turbulence that can be expressed violently.
I understand. It really is unfortunate to know that even those in authority are among the people that spread corruption and instability among our homelands. U_U However, it's never too late to give up my friend. The root cause of this is clearly because of the money in it. But there's no benefit in "dirty money". I feel this should be obvious to most of the intelligent folks. Money can be a really evil thing. It can twist people's minds. I mean it's worse than Kotoamatsukami.
Naw seriously, people need to see through these illusions and wake the **** up. :yeah:
Of course there is benefit in dirty money. That's precisely why people will get dirty money. Dirty money is just as spendable as any other money out there.
If I can convince you that a set of shelves I made are worth a thousand dollars when I only spent a hundred dollars and a couple hours in making them... then I made a hell of a profit off of you. Was that set really worth a thousand dollars? Who is to say? You were free to accept or reject the price, and you chose to accept it. So puzzle on that one.
Or how about this... insurance money. I can make the logical argument that insurance companies use the threat of natural disaster to get us to pay for their 'service.'
"Aim, that's silly no one controls storms."
So, how much are you paying to cover the cost of stolen items?
... Hmm?
"Aim..."
Isn't that what the mafia did? Had businesses pay to protect them from all the trash and hooligans on the street who would tear up and steal from their business? Whether those hooligans were connected to the Mafia, or not, was purely coincidental.
One is a reputable service... the other is not. Yet, logically, there is little distinction between the two.
I'm bringing up the question: "What's different between 'clean' money, and 'dirty' money?"
About this VX gas, hasn't it been outlawed by the CWC? :| Damn, this is scary shit. It's not just about the US alone, I mean there are a large handful of countries with weapons of mass destruction.
Such weapons and equipment are an undeniable atrocity to our world.
Chemical weapons are laughably irrelevant. They're good for wiping out buildings full of people - but they don't do so well when you are trying to target things like cities.
Nuclear weapons are much more complicated endeavors than they are worth. Even a weapon in the megaton yield rating is only going to decimate a couple dozen city blocks if flown up via private aircraft. They're good if you want to tear up real-estate and property, but not so good if you want to actually kill people. Even then - most countries would be better off investing in barometric bombs (fuel-air explosives). You can get very similar results on a much smaller budget that can be used over a much wider area.
The real weapon of mass destruction comes from biological weapons. The weaponized forms of a virus can be especially potent. 'Simple' flu viruses can melt your insides due to the fact that the weapon is being introduced into your system in ways that it normally would not. Then the weapon self-propagates if it is designed to do so - meaning some rogue biologist with a Level III hot lab in his garage can, plausibly, burn out the population of an entire continent on a budget that Luxemburg could support without a second thought.
Not that making research on them illegal is even possible. You can't research cures for disease without also opening up the gates for individuals to supply themselves for their own research.
U_U I didn't know Hitler was elected democratically. I always thought of him as a tyrant who forced his way through the masses and reached the top, only to get cold-blooded revenge.
He was a hero to the people.
The Jewish bankers were the reason Germany was having problems (sound familiar?). He came in and fixed their economy - gave people jobs and got everyone working together, again. Germany prospered under Hitler's regime compared to the roughly two decades of collapse that started at the end of World War One (then known as The Great War).
He was, largely, adored by the population. Very few people actually recognized what he was doing to the Jews. They didn't want to believe that this man, who had done so much to help their country and who had been a force to rally behind against the oppressive allies of the Jews, could be exterminating an entire race.
For most of the people in Germany, he was leading them toward a just world. They had collapsed following the economic restrictions placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles:
You must be registered for see links
. Inflation was so bad that you had to purchase your food on the way home from work because your paycheck would be useless by sun-down. It was the hyper-inflation that Libertarians of today have nightmares about regarding our current debt situation.
The bankers and many Jewish business owners were doing okay through all of this - and it was only a matter of time before some political personality began to use the disparity to leverage their own agenda.
Hitler had nothing against the Jews, personally. They were a political means to an end. If the bankers and business owners would have had an identifiable group of Irish amongst them - then it would have been a crusade against the Irish he would have launched.
By the way, it depends on how people should be armed when you say you want them to be armed. I would always feel unsafe if people around me were possessing a pistol or assult rifle etc.
Why?
I worked 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, armed with an anti-ballistic vest, assault rifle, side-arm, and half a dozen other lethal devices for over 7 months. I worked with 40 others doing the same thing, dealing with every manner of person you can imagine across a language barrier.
Never once had to use them.
Do you know who we had to occasionally get rough with? Unarmed people from the ship who liked to start fights with each other.
When people are armed, the risk of creating conflict becomes much higher. Even if you, personally, are not armed - what is the chance that, if there are 20 armed people around you, none of them are going to care enough to step in if you are getting mugged to deal with your attacker?
Pretty much zero. Someone is going to step in. Mugging, thus, becomes a very high-risk activity compared to the payout it represents.
Houston, Texas was -the- capital for car-jackings. It had the highest per-capita car-jacking rate in the U.S. (and quite possibly the world). Houston, then, passed a law allowing concealed carry of firearms. The incident rates for car-jackings fell to one of the lowest per-capita in the U.S., quite literally, overnight.
Why? It was now legal to carry a firearm and blow someone's head off for trying to yank you out of your car at a stoplight. Apparently, most people's cars are not worth the risk of getting one's head blown off. So car jackings fell.
However, if they possessed a something like a baton or even body armor, it would be much less frightening and smarter, wouldn't you agree? Any object can be considered a weapon if you think about it. :dunno:
No. I wouldn't.
The fact is any criminal that can obtain a firearm now has a very powerful range and speed advantage over those who would try and stop him.
Regardless - there doesn't seem to be a problem with people being armed with firearms:
You must be registered for see links
"Fact: Forty states150, comprising the majority of the American population, are "right-to-carry"
states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-tocarry
law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02%
of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.151
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting
period, 2005).152
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their
concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second153. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.154"
This is also very true, I agree. Well it's all up to the people as in the general public. Only they can sort things out I guess. Democracy is indeed a good method in politics if you know how to use it. :yeah:
It starts out good. It eventually breeds mediocrity as people are incapable of realizing just how incompetent they are regarding certain issues.
If you think about it - those at and below the 60 percentile for any given issue are making the decisions. Which is why we have a representative democracy... but that only takes so long for people to begin electing people who just say agreeable things rather than actually honor and fill the duties of the office.
Not that people would be able to tell if those individuals knew what they were talking about - but it all leads to the same place.
My friend, please read my first post correctly. What i'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be this way. Being on the offensive will not stop conflicts. We shouldn't create illusions by going on the offensive and yet making it seem as if we're on the defensive. This is just like putting a fire out with water alone. However, the truth is that not every fire is extinguished with only water. There are other ways, like using fire retardants. Some fires get extinguished with gas, some with foam or even gel. The point being, all of them help solve the problem. I hope you get the picture bro.
Honestly, it's not worth my time and effort to try and figure out how you plan to go about achieving this nonsensical goal of yours. I do not believe my -individual- security/safety is the responsibility of anyone but my own. The police are a nice idea and have their role in things - but it's not to be my bodyguard or personal security staff. Thus, it's up to me to ensure that my being and property are safe and secure.
There will, more than likely, come a time when the only way to do that is to kill someone who is trying to make the world a 'better place' by taking away means he/she deems unnecessary for the task of defending myself.
And that's just the way the world is. No judgment on their soul; no bad feelings. Their way of life was intrusive and inconsistent, and their influence was removed. Life goes on.
I mean, it would only be for the better and good. It would be for the justice and fairness of all people. *_* I really don't see anything wrong with prohibiting weapons for the citizens of countries. :dunno: The point here is to reduce the misuse of weapons as much as possible. Sure, it won't be easy but if people to commit to a good action such as this, then they would be considered heroes/heroines of our time and would be worthy of the greatest blessings. 